The present invention relates to recoil devices for motion decoys and particularly to a non-motorized recoil device for a waterfowl decoy.
One of the most enduring and legal hunting methods for attracting waterfowl is through the use of a decoy that mimics the appearance of the targeted waterfowl. The use of both live and artificial decoys in the United States by native North Americans for waterfowl hunting is documented back over one-thousand years. However, the practice of using live decoys has been abolished at the federal and state levels since the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. And the use of artificial decoys has grown ever since.
Early artificial decoys were expertly carved from wood and painstakenly hand painted. Over time motion was added to the artificial decoys. More recently (since the introduction of low-cost materials and manufacturing methods introduced in the 1950's) today's waterfowl hunter uses life-like (in appearance) decoys that emulate wing movement using wind, or recoil-type mechanisms.
Newer technologies in artificial decoys include motorized waterfowl decoys that generally have a spinning wing or blade apparatus revolving at a high speed, imitating the movement of waterfowl as they stretch their wings, landing, or move about. Other decoy types vibrate in water to imitate the movement of birds feeding. And yet others include a plurality of decoys attached to a common post and move around a central axis and alternately dive and surface to imitate a flock of feeding ducks. Examples of electric-motorized decoys (motors that require a power-source such as a battery, as distinguished from recoil devices) include the device disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,092,323 to McBride et al. issued on 25 Jun. 2000.
Motorized decoys using on-board batteries present a number of environmental concerns in the manufacture and disposal. But, more specific concerns about the use of motorized decoys come from the various state and federal agencies stewarding waterfowl. Some agencies are concerned about the “fair chase” of the prey: For example, The Washington Commission of Fish and Wildlife and Washington State adopted regulations that prohibited the use of all electronic decoys. Others are concerned about the overall harvest of waterfowl: California, for example, concerned about increasing harvest rates of local mallards also banned electronic decoys. Currently, there is increased concern in the recreational hunting community that additional states or the federal government will outright ban electric-motorized decoys. Thus, there remains a need for non-electric-motorized decoys that emulate real-life appearance and movement of waterfowl.
One prior-art attempt to provide a non-motorized waterfowl decoy includes The Automatic Cord Reel For Duck Decoys described by Johnson in U.S. Pat. No. 4,826,099 issued on 2 May 1989. The Johnson device includes a cord reel for automatically winding a decoy cord. The reel has a hollow center and a bore extending from the surface of the reel to the hollow center. A rubber band extends through the reel's hollow center and attaches at either end to a housing. When the cord is pulled, the reel unwinds to release the cord thereby twisting the rubber band. The twisted rubber band exerts a torsional force on the reel, which automatically rewinds the cord when the pulling force on the cord is sufficiently diminished.
One limitation of the Johnson device lies in the recoil-mechanism. Specifically, the attaching of the cord (12) and elastic (26) to the reel (22) presents a problem: One end of the cord must first be passed through the bore (34), which extends from the surface of the reel to its hollow center. A tab (36) is then inserted into the mid-portion of the elastic band and the cord is tied around both the band and the tab, as best illustrated in FIG. 7 (of Johnson). This attaching point requires a tremendous amount of dexterity and patience on the part of the hunter or person assembling the device. As can be well appreciated by those accustomed to repairing decoys in a small boat, or along a marshy shore, such a repair—should the elastic band break—an all-to-common occurrence in real-world conditions—is practically impossible. The relatively small size of the components further makes an in-the-field repair impractical. Additionally, the reel (22) is overly narrow, which requires precise alignment of the cord, and does not allow for knotted, or debris-strewn cords. Such conditions cause the reel to jam. Thus, there remains a need for a recoil-mechanism that is more robust and easier to repair in-the-field.
Another recoil device, described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,487,811 to Barrett issued on 3 Dec. 2002, includes a waterfowl decoy with a self-retracting anchor line. Barrett describes a body defining a closed interior space in which a spring-biased anchor line reel disposes. An anchor line is wound on the reel and trained out of the body through a port in the breast of the body. A spring-biased, manually actuatable lock-member is disposed in the bore formed in the body at the breast and includes a passage through which the anchor line is trained and normally snubbed between the lock member and the decoy body. Similar to the aforementioned Johnson decoy, the Barrett decoy employs a narrow, vertically aligned reel mechanism (24) and this narrow reel presents the same problems previously discussed. To better align the cord, the Barrett device includes a small port (23) on the breast of the decoy body. This narrow port can easily become jammed, rendering the decoy non-functional. In addition, in real-world use the cord does not always train on the reel, which is exasperated by the narrowness of the reel and relatively high side-walls of the reel. And, the cord can jump the sidewalls of the reel and entangle on the axle. This requires the user to repair the decoy in the field under sub-optimal conditions. Further, the biasing spring, although considerably more robust than the rubber-band of Johnson, eventually will corrode or fatigue from use, necessitating a costly repair utilizing specialty components that makes it practically impossible to service in the field. Thus, there remains still a need for an improved recoil mechanism that is less-prone to jams and cord-tangles, uses less components, is of a simpler design, and provides easier field-repairs.
Another example of a non-motorized recoil device includes the Motion Decoy of Porter disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,665,975 issued on 23 Dec. 2003. Porter describes a motion waterfowl decoy including a pair of wings mounted to an axle such that the wings rotate with the axle. A pull cord winds about the axle so that the unwinding cord will spin the axle and wings. A biasing device such as a length of rubber or latex tubing or spring is attached to the axle. The Porter device provides a spindle axle (2), which is biased against rotation in a first direction by a latex surgical tubing (4). The tubing is secured to the body of the decoy at a first end (of the tubing), and the opposite, second end (61) secures to the axle so that the rotation of the axle will cause the surgical tubing to be wrapped around the same axle (2), thus loading the elastic surgical tubing. Alternatively, the axle (2) is biased by a torsion spring. However, one limitation of the Porter device regardless of biasing means arises in the attaching of the biasing means to the axle. Porter does not specify the attaching means and current state of the art attaching means includes looping the end around the axle and securing the loose end to itself around the axle or providing an axle with a through hole and inserting the free end through the through hole and knotting the free end around a portion of the axle and tying the free end to itself. Over time the pull-string, the biasing-means, or both will wear and require repair or replacement and tying a knot on a relatively small diameter cord when fatigued, cold, or both—common conditions of the hunter when hunting along the near-frozen, wet marsh land—is a practical impossibility. Further, Porter includes a guide hole (7) through which the cord must pass. As previously discussed, such a small bore hole can result in a non-functioning decoy when the cord becomes tangled, knotted or debris-strewn. Thus, there remains a need for a more robust recoil-mechanism that can be easily, quickly, and cost-effectively repaired in the field.
Despite the advances in non-electrical recoil-type decoys, there remains a need for a waterfowl decoy that incorporates a more reliable, more economical-to-produce, easier-to-repair, more-efficient, and simpler recoil mechanism for waterfowl decoys. Such a device should further include means to better emulate the natural movement of the waterfowl. And, such a device should provide means for using the decoy when the hunter is stationed in front of or behind the decoy.